[PUG] America's Political Philosophy

aeon said:
Values are derived from the contextual relationships between and among people and things.

When those contexts change, so does the value of ideals. They may no longer adequately address peoples
Click to expand...
 
Jack said:
Probably the best and most direct response yet, but I fail to see exactly how these new technological developments alter the value of their ideals.
Click to expand...

That is because you aren't seeing it pragmatically.

However, your OP is rather vague to begin with since you don't state what specific rights you feel the government is regulating and why they are not Constitutionally justified in doing so.
 
Satya said:
That is because you aren't seeing it pragmatically.

However, your OP is rather vague to begin with since you don't state what specific rights you feel the government is regulating and why they are not Constitutionally justified in doing so.
Click to expand...
The government isn't constitutionally justified in regulating any rights, as the explicitly stated purpose of our government is preserving rights. The instant a right becomes subject to regulation it's merely a privelege. Technology not withstanding this principle hasn't changed.

To quote from the "Declaration of Independence," the reasoning document behind the founding of our nation and constitution wherein the founders clearly spell out their philosophy:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
Click to expand...

I gave the example above of property, now granted, I could probably go on and on about the abuses of power, the corruption, and explicit constitutional violations that are rife within the government right now, but it all comes back to this attitude of government. Because whether it's big business using the government as a form of coercion as a means of securing their own particular special interests, or if it's some morally crusading conservative or liberal thinking that offering all their power into the hands of government to coerce the evil 'other side' into 'behaving', this attitude of 'vote more power into the hands of government' is the problem, not the solution. In other words, the attitude that uses goverment as a tool for coercion, (rife within both the democratic and republican parties) the attitude that says "add more and more 'rational, logical, restrictions,'" making government bigger, more powerful, and more corrupt and more oppressive, is the issue. The principle that governments are instituted among men for the purpose of preserving their freedoms has been fundamentally violated and ignored by those whose love for coercion has surpassed their devotion to liberty.
 
To put it in another light look at government from the extremes and follow it through the range.
You have Extreme regulation, you life is but a bureaucratic red tape at all hours. You are in essence completely a robot.

At the other end completely no government yous boundaries are now what you yourself set. With that some people live sensibly whist others are out of their mind.

Now since intrinsically people create order from "chaos" the latter scenario is more applicable to how power structure is and thus even the framers of the constitution too are restrictive.

You speak of abuse of power within the government yet you do very little to acknowledge the corruption of the private sector and how it leverages the government for it's own good and generally at the cost of the people. (Example Enron's actions when California deregulated its powergrid). Also there are those who wish to limit rights guaranteed to people(proposed changes to the 14th amendment).

You speak of how putting more power in government to keep corporations in line is the problem. Ok then without some regulator body above them what is to stop them from doing whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want to?
 
Marx said that the government is the executive committee of the bourgeoisie

That makes a lot of sense when you look at how the world is

The government really is the committee of the capitalist class that is why the corporations get to ride rough shod over everyone and everything

Lovely idea having people whose job it is to protect the people from the monied interests, but what if those protectors are from the monied interests? They do not protect....and that's why we are all getting screwed

If you take away the protectors then you leave the monied interests to basically run rough shod over everyone and you are back to fuedalism

The problem is as i have already implied, that the monied interests have usurped government to such a degree that they are synonymous, which is why we are now entering into a new phase of neo-fuedalism

So logically what is the answer if you want to protect the majority of the people from the few rapacious people who form the capitalist class?

You have to remove the ability of people to control others. Money and government are just instruments of control which the capitalist class use to control the people. However you cannot remove government on its own you have to remove money as well so that you disempower the capitalist class. This creates a level playing field where we are all equal.

Once that inequality is levelled out you can focus on providing for everyone, which is something capitalism fails woefully to do; thats why there's so much poverty in the world.

Get rid of money which has no intrinsic value and start focussing on the allocation of real resources such as food, water, air, energy in such a way that every person on the planet is taken care of.

Money really is the root of all evil
 
Last edited:
Jack said:
The government isn't constitutionally justified in regulating any rights, as the explicitly stated purpose of our government is preserving rights. The instant a right becomes subject to regulation it's merely a privelege. Technology not withstanding this principle hasn't changed.

To quote from the "Declaration of Independence," the reasoning document behind the founding of our nation and constitution wherein the founders clearly spell out their philosophy:



I gave the example above of property, now granted, I could probably go on and on about the abuses of power, the corruption, and explicit constitutional violations that are rife within the government right now, but it all comes back to this attitude of government. Because whether it's big business using the government as a form of coercion as a means of securing their own particular special interests, or if it's some morally crusading conservative or liberal thinking that offering all their power into the hands of government to coerce the evil 'other side' into 'behaving', this attitude of 'vote more power into the hands of government' is the problem, not the solution. In other words, the attitude that uses goverment as a tool for coercion, (rife within both the democratic and republican parties) the attitude that says "add more and more 'rational, logical, restrictions,'" making government bigger, more powerful, and more corrupt and more oppressive, is the issue. The principle that governments are instituted among men for the purpose of preserving their freedoms has been fundamentally violated and ignored by those whose love for coercion has surpassed their devotion to liberty.
Click to expand...

I believe you are holding yourself to a naive ideal. Every government exists to coerce. It can accomplish its ends by no other means. The moment a government must enforce any law, it must use force or the threat of its authority to do so. The idea that the government exists to preserve rights is based on Locke's vision of a social contract. Individuals recognize the legitimacy of a government as long as it can protect their inherent liberties. The rights that we expect the government to protect are the ones outlined specifically and explicitly in the Constitution, not those vaguely mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

You seem to be intentionally avoiding the specifics. What particular liberties is the government failing to protect? In what ways do you envision that they should protect those liberties if not by coercion?
 
I think that alot of people seem to believe that government is inherently bad because it is currently on the side of the large corporations. Now, I agree that the US government is corrupt because it does cater to the wealthiest people so often but we have to look at what causes this.

The wealthy corporations that influence the government so much are the ones that spend so much money on getting people elected as well as getting bills passed/killed in their favor. The problem is not the government necessarily, but the lobbyists that pay the government to give the economic advantage to the corporations. Most of these advantages make certain policies legal that can be big profit makers (i.e. dropping someone from medical coverage). After this,who is left to keep the companies honest? The government can't do anything because the corporation is doing nothing illegal. What am i going to do about it? Nothing.

The problem lies within the corporations gaining power through the government over the middle and lower classes, much like in 1984.

Government can often be a very good thing, if not being bribed.

Also, why do people think that it is the government's job to regulate freedoms or liberties? I don't see any real restrictions with any freedom here where i live.
 
Kavalan said:
You speak of how putting more power in government to keep corporations in line is the problem. Ok then without some regulator body above them what is to stop them from doing whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want to?
Click to expand...


The argument I've heard proponents for deregulation pose is one of the citizens keeping the free market in line. Such as "you stop doing things the we don't want you to, or we'll start buying from someone else." I personally feel, however, that
1)The citizen population is ill-equipped to keep tabs on everything the private sector does, and
2)without proper regulation, corporate buyouts and market manipulation can keep one juggernaut in power with a monopoly over an industry or product, eliminating what obvious quality control was needed via competition.

/2cents
 
Last edited:
Capt Charisma said:
The government are just the largest organized criminal organizations in this world.
Click to expand...

I was reading about how laws were put in place to override the right to assemble in the United States. These laws prohibit "street" gang formation. Notice how they added in "street"? Otherwise the officials of the U.S. Government and Military and all politically & economically-invested high society clubs would be imprisoned.
 
our political system is a system of control
not being used for our best interests

it is plain and simple to see
if we can open our eyes

do not be deceived

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRLnc_SEcyQ&feature=related"]YouTube - Max Igan - I.C.A.N. Interview - 01/08/11 - 6/7[/ame]
 
Kavalan said:
To put it in another light look at government from the extremes and follow it through the range.
You have Extreme regulation, you life is but a bureaucratic red tape at all hours. You are in essence completely a robot.

At the other end completely no government yous boundaries are now what you yourself set. With that some people live sensibly whist others are out of their mind.

Now since intrinsically people create order from "chaos" the latter scenario is more applicable to how power structure is and thus even the framers of the constitution too are restrictive.

You speak of abuse of power within the government yet you do very little to acknowledge the corruption of the private sector and how it leverages the government for it's own good and generally at the cost of the people. (Example Enron's actions when California deregulated its powergrid). Also there are those who wish to limit rights guaranteed to people(proposed changes to the 14th amendment).

You speak of how putting more power in government to keep corporations in line is the problem. Ok then without some regulator body above them what is to stop them from doing whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want to?
Click to expand...

Actually, you hit on my take on corporations and the government pretty well. The more power we put into governments hands, the more corporations are able to leverage that against the people.

What do we do about big business creating products that harm people? Inevitably the free market will do way with their ilk, as long as the information is available, but if we 'regulate' poisons, people will think they are safe.

The Health/wellness emphasis on organic food seems to be the free market's reaction to all these pesticides in fruits, and steroid pumped meat that has been in the market now... its of course been less scandalous because of the government restrictions, since people have this false sense of security, and I think stunted the market's chance to give them their proper spankings.
 
myself said:
It is our responsibility to keep the government in check.

Clinging to this attitude that dismisses critics as petty whiners is quite sad.

This kind of thinking is so detrimental.
See how our conversation is stunted before it ever started?

If one has closed their mind to the existence of a problem,
how can they correctly asses their own situation?

To be so extremely opposed to the possibility that our gov't has a problem is naive.
Such passionate naivety is simply dangerous.

We dont know what we dont know, so let's train ourselves to be open minded.

Everyone is served best when we take an honest look at the issues.

We must look at ourselves as much as we talk about the gov't.

If we allow this madness to persist, we are the ones to blame, not the gov't.

We should take responsibility, rather than give it up.

And if you dont cast your vote for one of the Repubs or Dems, everyone knows it's a wasted vote, because third party is never going to win.

We have a system that allows the masses to participate just enough so that it feels as if we are included.

Reality is, the elected officials are there because they had enough money to pay for their campaign.

We are only given information from the media, which serves up a good dose of drama to stir our emotions and keep us angry and afraid.

We must stop getting so offended and distracted with these petty things.

Let's think again.

What would be so bad about thinking?
Click to expand...

+1
 
The thing is without the government they have nothing to leverage and all they have to do is whatever the hell they want. I still point to the deregulation of the California power grid and how costs were inflated to hemorrhage more money out of the system screwing everyone but the power supplier and they didn't get caught until a regulator committee got involved.
 
Satya said:
I believe you are holding yourself to a naive ideal. Every government exists to coerce. It can accomplish its ends by no other means. The moment a government must enforce any law, it must use force or the threat of its authority to do so. The idea that the government exists to preserve rights is based on Locke's vision of a social contract. Individuals recognize the legitimacy of a government as long as it can protect their inherent liberties. The rights that we expect the government to protect are the ones outlined specifically and explicitly in the Constitution, not those vaguely mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

You seem to be intentionally avoiding the specifics. What particular liberties is the government failing to protect? In what ways do you envision that they should protect those liberties if not by coercion?
Click to expand...
You do agree that the Declaration of Independence was the reasoning document behind our nations founding correct?

You seem to misunderstand my point there. It is not that government uses coercive power, but that the attitude wherein the coercive power of government is used to restrict liberties as opposed to preserve them. So lets be clear about what we're arguing before we go further.

You understand that many of our rights are outlined in the constitution, and many explicitly, so then you would agree presumably that explicit violations of our constitution by the government would qualify as not only government failing in its duty, but becoming anathema to its own purpose according to the philosophy (Locke's) upon which our nation was founded correct?
 
Last edited:
Kavalan said:
The thing is without the government they have nothing to leverage and all they have to do is whatever the hell they want. I still point to the deregulation of the California power grid and how costs were inflated to hemorrhage more money out of the system screwing everyone but the power supplier and they didn't get caught until a regulator committee got involved.
Click to expand...
If we're going to get into an argument of merit, lets agree to the terms first, you would be arguing against the founding father's vision in terms of economy, and dominance and power of government, in favor of our (or at least your) modern "enlightened" understanding, whereas I would be defending their particular vision and philosophy of government?
 
Jack said:
If we're going to get into an argument of merit, lets agree to the terms first, you would be arguing against the founding father's vision in terms of economy, and dominance and power of government, in favor of our (or at least your) modern "enlightened" understanding, whereas I would be defending their particular vision and philosophy of government?
Click to expand...

No I'm arguing that so long as people have divergent and malevolent intent in what they do leaving them to self-regulate is stupid and creating a system in which people are elected to maintain the best interests of the people, Not corperations.
 
Kavalan said:
No I'm arguing that so long as people have divergent and malevolent intent in what they do leaving them to self-regulate is stupid and creating a system in which people are elected to maintain the best interests of the people, Not corperations.
Click to expand...

You're not being clear, do you support or oppose the founder's philosophy, and the constitution?

As you are arguing against free markets... are you arguing that government has to be big and controlling enough to control buisnesses, and stop them from taking advantage of people so preserving individual liberties be damned?

(in essence, oppose the founders, security over freedom, make the big businesses behave?)

Kav, are you sure you want to trust government to know what's best for you? The people don't know what the people want? Government does?
 
Kavalan said:
No I'm arguing that so long as people have divergent and malevolent intent in what they do leaving them to self-regulate is stupid and creating a system in which people are elected to maintain the best interests of the people, Not corperations.
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense to me. Clear as crystal.
 
ZenCat said:
Makes perfect sense to me. Clear as crystal.
Click to expand...
I know what he's saying, but how does this (in his mind) relate to the original post is what I'm after.

Otherwise it's only a red herring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top